THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9620 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS’) by the petitioner/A.4 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Cr.No.88 of 2025 of Aswaraopeta Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20(b) (ii) (c), 27A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 19.04.2025 on reliable information with regard to transportation of dry ganja in lorry bearing No.MP 09 HH 8811 the police intercepted the vehicle at Sri Laxmi Tulasi Paper Board, and found driver and two other persons. On interrogation, they revealed that the bags containing 216 packets of ganja in 12 bags, total weighing about 463.74 kgs. Basing on the confession statement of A.1 to A.3, the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused and case was registered against him for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said offences. Even according to the confession statement of A.1, A.4 introduced A.2 to A.1 and no witness stated about involvement of the petitioner herein in this case. Lws.1 to 8 are police officials and none of them stated about the presence of petitioner at the scene of offence and the petitioner herein is absolutely not connected with this offence. The petitioner is a resident of Odisha state and he is a law abiding citizen and shall abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the seized contraband is commercial quantity and petitioner is involved in similar cases. Further anticipatory bail is not maintainable in NDPS cases as such, requested this Court to dismiss this bail application.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that except stating that A.4 introduced A.2 to A.1, there are no allegations against this petitioner about the alleged contraband. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment in Shakthi Sudhakar Vs State of Telangana, 2018 SCC Online Hyd 1439 wherein this court granted anticipatory bail to the accused therein observing that there is no seizure. He also relied on Joy Mitra Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi, 2025 SCC Online Del 3016, wherein in the said case also anticipatory bail was granted. Whereas learned Additional Public relied on the judgment in The State of Haryana Vs Samarth Kumar, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 622, wherein it was observed that the judgment in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu 4 cannot be taken into consideration at the time of bail petition and the same is not maintainable.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal⁵ the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

4 (2021) 4 SCC 1

5 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.12621/2024 dated 19.09.2024

that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

8. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that grant of pre-arrest bail at a stage when the investigation is still in progress, may impede the investigative process and potentially prejudice the case of prosecution, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be di